If you recall, one of the most steadfast public positions of the Democrats and the Obama White House during the health care debate was that the legislation did not constitute a tax. President Barach Obama expressly denied that the legislation was a tax in pushing for its approval. Now, however, his administration is seeking to defend the law on the basis that it is . . . you guessed it . . . a tax.
The Obama Administration has been repeatedly criticized for saying things to the public and then saying different things in court. Civil libertarians have denounced the Administration for not only fighting to preserve Bush-era doctrines but actually expanding on those doctrines in court in the areas of surveillance, torture, and terrorism.
The Administration is defending the new law as part of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.” It is the strongest possible basis for defending the law (and was used to justify the social security law), but it happens to contradict what both Democratic leaders, including President Obama, told the public.
Just last September, George Stephanopoulos specifically challenged the President on his denial that the legislation was a tax on ABC News program “This Week.” Stephanopoulos observed that the legislation seemed to be clearly a tax by any definition. Obama replied strongly “I absolutely reject that notion.”
Here is the exchange:
STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…
OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
I remain a bit unclear why the President believes that looking up a term in a dictionary must mean “you’re stretching a little bit right now.” Now, of course, you can simply look it up in the Administration’s brief.
While once defined as a “penalty,” the cost of being uninsured is now embraced as a tax that is expected to raise $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
I previously wrote this prior column on the serious federalism concerns raised by the new legislation.
Source: NY Times
Byron said:
“most businessmen are fair, I know I am.”
Maybe (the most part, I’m sure that you are fair – confused and mistaken, but fair ;-)), but I’m certain that nearly all businessmen (there’s always an asshole somewhere…) will do the right thing if it is also in their economic best interests to do so. Why would you ever want to make the assumption that people will act against their own best interests if that is the right thing to do. That seems pretty naive to me.
Byron,
Regarding university technology transfer you said:
“Sounds like some free market incentives to me. I would say that if they put those in then that is what is making this work. Take out even the minimal free market incentive and you will not have the same result.”
You seem to be under the impression that this effects a large part of university research – it doesn’t. I don’t know the numbers, but the vast majority of university research is published, not patented. This is a system that, while not perfect, works well. With all of the problems that we need to address, why do you want to destroy a working system and replace it with something much worse?
No Byron.
It’s a flaw in your logic.
Federal funding for research comes from government funds collected via taxes, etc. Private funds fund private research. It’s private companies that benefit when the universities turn over the fruits of that labor. So in effect you are arguing against basic science research that benefits not just society as a whole, but industry.
“And I don’t know they would be used efficiently in the private sector but there is substantial evidence to suggest that money used by the private sector tends to have a more salutary effect on the economy than does money controlled by government.” Well Slarti just gave an example of what’s wrong with that thinking with drug companies. And then there’s the whole pot of money BP spent on safety research and implementation. Yeah. That worked out really well. You say there is substantial evidence that private people spend money better than governments?
Prove it. With facts and proper logic. Otherwise, you’re back to unreasoned opinion again.
As to my bias? Which bias do you think you’re pointing to? Because I know where I’m biased. I’m biased against illogical thought just like I’m biased against bias and stupidity in general. Because I think. Which leads me to be biased against fascism. Because it’s greedy myopic narcissism as a matter of logical analysis. So if bias is your problem? Which one of my biases do you take issue with?
Byron posted:
“Jill:
the federal government should not be “investing” in university research.
I am sure Slarti will disagree.”
Easy bet. I don’t think I can’t count the number of ways in which this is a bad idea (unless you’ve got stock in the Chinese or European university system). You like to talk about unintended consequences – the consequences of cutting off federal research money would eventually result in the US becoming a technological and scientific backwater…
Buddha:
“Like your logic about funding university sciences misses the point entirely. Free markets benefit BECAUSE of that Federally funded research being turned over to industry. In the absence of that collaboration, there would still be a net gain: knowledge. Your “financial incentive” is a result, not a cause.”
That is your bias, it is not a flaw in my “logic”.
Where does the money come from? It doesn’t come from government it comes from individuals. Government merely redirects funds the private sector then doesn’t have available to it. How do you know the funds are even being used efficiently? And I don’t know they would be used efficiently in the private sector but there is substantial evidence to suggest that money used by the private sector tends to have a more salutary effect on the economy than does money controlled by government.
Jill posted:
Byron,
I had a discussion about this with a colleague several years ago and he told me the most of the big drug companies were focusing on finding new uses for drugs they had already discovered rather than doing research to find new drugs because it was a cheaper way to make money. You’re advocating a status quo that we’ve moved past.
Byron posted:
This wasn’t a failure of oversight, it was the predictable result of the intentional dismantling of regulatory agencies.
Byron said:
“Why not start from there and develop a system that works for man’s nature rather than trying to change man’s nature to fit an unnatural system?”
That’s what I’ve been trying to explain to you for months – regulation that that makes the desired action the best action economically works because it presupposes that people will act according to human nature.
Byron,
I’ve pointed out your counter argument is flawed on multiple levels to which you have not offered any substantive rebuttal.
I need do nothing more than that.
Just as a fun exercise, and since we’re talking about the benefit of competition… Anyone care to guess what industry with an exemption from anti-monopoly laws I’m thinking of? Extra credit if you can give the reasoning behind that exemption.
Buddha:
I don’t think my “logic” is faulty, but it would wrap it up in a nice, neat little package if it was as easily dismissed as that. No opposition or counter argument need be entertained in that case.
Correction on my previous comment:
“Unfortunately, not spending money upfront to take environmental precautions or to unsure worker safety can cause disasters up the road.”
That should have read: Unfortunately, not spending money upfront to take environmental precautions or to ENSURE worker safety can cause disasters up the road.
*****
I think the hot, humid weather is meltin’ me brain cells!
Puzzling,
I’m not sure if this has been addressed, but you’re wrong about competition leading to better prices or a better product.
Competition leads to a companies trying to differentiate themselves. That niche might be a better product, or lower prices, or a convenient location, or a unique product, or the making your product a status symbol, or better costumer service, etc. Sometimes, competition even leads to a business plan that’s basically “make the other guy go out of business, then people will have to come to us.”
It’s like thinking that evolution leads to intelligence. It doesn’t. Intelligence is one of the many adaptations that help those that are successful, but so is using less resources, or blending in with surroundings, or being really frickin’ big.
If you’re going to pretend that you’ve got the sole truth on complex issues, it helps not to base your views on huge oversimplifications.
No Byron, you do need to produce better evidence than you have when your logic is as faulty as it is.
Like your logic about funding university sciences misses the point entirely. Free markets benefit BECAUSE of that Federally funded research being turned over to industry. In the absence of that collaboration, there would still be a net gain: knowledge. Your “financial incentive” is a result, not a cause.
Byron–
“most businessmen are fair, I know I am.”
My husband has always been fair and has always looked out for the welfare of his employees too.
I think your statement may be true for men and women who own small businesses. I don’t think the same is true for many executives of big corporations, banks, etc. I believe the “greed is good” mentality that began during the Reagan years is still with us today.
Too many big companies like to take shortcuts so they can reap bigger financial rewards. Unfortunately, not spending money upfront to take environmental precautions or to unsure worker safety can cause disasters up the road. Think BP and the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico…the Massey Energy Company and the deaths of mine workers!
Buddha:
From your article:
“How Does University Technology Transfer Work? Under federal law, as embodied
in the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, nonprofit organizations-including universities–may
patent and retain title to inventions created from research funded by the government. In
general, the university must disclose each new invention to the federal funding agency
within two months of the inventor disclosing it to the university, decide whether or not
to retain title to the invention, and then file a patent application within one year of
electing to seek title. Universities must license the rights to innovations to industry for
commercial development; small businesses receive preference. The federal government
also receives a nonexclusive, irrevocable license to the invention. Universities must
share with the inventor any income eventually derived from the patent. Any remaining
income, after technology management expenses, must support scientific research or
education.”
Sounds like some free market incentives to me. I would say that if they put those in then that is what is making this work. Take out even the minimal free market incentive and you will not have the same result.
If you say all dogs have 4 legs and I produce one dog with 3 legs I have disproved your assertion. I don’t need to produce every dog with 3 legs only one.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/19/poor-little-ceos.html
That’s three strikes at the logic ball, Byron.
“most businessmen are fair, I know I am.”
Logical error of fallacy of composition – the from each to all fallacy.
Despite acknowledging the truth of the premise(s) AND their causal connection.
I really wonder what it’s like to be that much in denial.